Salem Conservation Commission
Minutes of Meeting
Date and Time: Thursday, May 10, 2012, 6:00 p.m.
Meeting Location: Third Floor Conference Room, City Hall Annex, 120 Washington Street
Members Present: Chairwoman Julia Knisel, Michael Blier, David Pabich, Amy Hamilton, Dan Ricciarelli
Members Absent: Bart Hoskins, Gavin McAuliffe
Others Present: Tom Devine, Conservation Agent
Recorder: Stacy Kilb
Chair Knisel calls the meeting to order at 6:07PM.
Meeting Minutes—April 12, 2012 and April 26, 2012
A motion to approve April 12th minutes is made by Pabich, seconded by Ricciarelli, and passes unanimously.
Ricciarelli motions to approve the April 26th minutes, Hamilton seconds, and the motion passes unanimously.
Note that Old/New business item “61 and 185 Jefferson Ave.: Discussion of wetlands violation” is taken out of order and discussed first. Notes on that item may be found below under “Old/New Business.”
Continuation of Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—DEP #64-525—Mark DeNisco, 10 Bailey Terrace, Peabody, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss proposed construction of a 2-family home and appurtenances at 12 Woodbury Court within land subject to coastal storm flowage.
Mark DeNisco presents. He discusses DEPcomments. The waves would have to go over the Jefferson apartments, cross the roadway, then land on Woodbury Court, which is very unlikely to happen, in order for this to be relevant. Devine reads the DEP comments, which require the applicant to show how placement of fill and foundation will deflect wave energy. They also wanted to know how it will meet the FEMA construction manual requirements for buildings in A zones. In the past they have conditioned that a building comply with the coastal construction manual.
Pabich comments that the DEP comment is not just about wave deflection but also about redirecting overwash and floodwaters. Knisels states that the comments fail to consider the location of the site. Devine says the DEP does not look thoroughly at each filing, instead depending on Conservation Commissions to do a more thorough review.
Pabich asks if there is any drainage in the immediate vicinity; there is a catch basin there. He thinks there will be water during a storm surge, which is his main concern. He discusses displacement and elevations. He worries about displacement on to neighboring properties.
Devine corresponded with the planner who staffs the planning board regarding whether major changes from the current plan would be needed to comply with the flood hazard overlay special permit requirements. The planner opined preliminarily that no major changes would be required.
Pabich states that there is not enough detail on the plan to understand drainage and topography. He is assuming everything done will be between elevations 9 and 10 with the first floor elevation at 10.5. Here he sees the applicant displacing 1400 cubic feet of water when the site floods. Water that sits there now would be displaced by the house and would go next door. He thinks the house should be built on pilings.
Pabich says another solution would be to lower the grade by the same amount, but that can’t be done with an AUL (Activity and Use Limitation) on the site. Chair Knisel asks if he has explored pilings; savings can be achieved on flood insurance with those. Pabich asks where the AUL starts; it is in the far, rear area, so the lot directly behind the house could be lowered. Pabich opines that they could bring enough area down. The Commission discusses various possible setups. The existing right of way is crushed stone. Ricciarelli feels an engineer should examine this issue and Pabich agrees.
The two options for this applicant are grading or pilings. Mr. DeNisco would prefer the grading. Pabich urges him to look into flood insurance; if the house is on pilings he can save a lot on insurance. Chairwoman Knisel believes he could recoup the cost of pilings in 10-20 years. Mr. DeNisco agrees to weigh the options. Either way Pabich would like details. The water would have to flow through in any case. Decorative lattice could be placed around the base of an elevated house. Adding pilings is a building code issue; a grading plan is an engineering issue. Mr. DeNisco will talk to his structural engineer and get back to the Commission. He will need an engineer’s stamp if lowering the parking area, but not if raising the house.
A motion to continue to the May 24 meeting is made by Pabich, seconded by Ricciarelli, and all are in favor.
Public Hearing—Request for Determination of Applicability—Michael E. Pelletier, 31 Ravenna Ave, Salem, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss proposed installation of a pool skimmer line within the buffer zone to a wetlands resource area at 31 Ravenna Avenue.
Mr. Pelletier presents. There is a pool which has been there for 40 years; last year it was not opened due to the skimmer line not working. The pool technician determined that the leak in the line was under the concrete deck and it would be expensive to fix. The pool skimmer line is the tube that runs from the collecting basket of the pool, then comes back through the pump to catch floating material. If it leaks, debris cannot be pulled from the skimmer and the pool vacuum cannot be used, so the pool becomes unusable.
In this case the concrete deck would have to be jack hammered, so the alternate option is to run a new, polypropylene line around the outside of the paved area instead, burying it in the ground. The trench would be one foot deep and 6” wide, then would be covered over. Work would be completed in one day, but the line would have to be winterized every year. It is a much more economical option and the one the owner would prefer to take.
Devine comments that this is in the buffer zone 30’ away from wetlands. Pabich outlines the process. There are established plantings there. The applicant discusses setup and location of a fence. Devine suggests working on a dry day so dirt pulled out does not spill into wetlands.
The applicant describes the setup of the sewer pipe as well.
There are no members of the public in the audience thus no comments. A motion to close is made by Pabich, seconded by Ricciarelli, and passes unanimously.
A motion to issue a Negative 2 Determination is made by Ricciarelli, seconded by Hamilton, and passes unanimously. This decision is hereby made a part of these minutes.
Old/New Business
- 61 and 185 Jefferson Ave.: Discussion of wetlands violation
This item is taken out of order on the agenda and discussed first. John Dick of Hancock Associates presents. They are working day by day on this project; he was at the site Tuesday and did his transects then. He thought a survey crew would be there today for the topographical map, but they got rained out so will go on Saturday.
Document: Project Narrative May 9 2012.
All transects are the same; he promised three and there are two. This is a phragmites-dominated upland wasteland; it is riverfront but is not wetlands. They are encroaching on National Grid’s land and they are cooperating. He has not yet heard if National Grid will let them plant anything taller than grass. As of now there are 18’ stag horn sumacs in the right of way; occasionally they get mown down. Mr. Dick can not dictate what gets planted by his client since National Grid may decide it is not right. He wants to plant grass and wildflower mix, and will plant with shrubs if he can convince National Grid. The owners will use large concrete barrier blocks to prevent people from dumping further material. There is a sign saying there are cameras onsite.
He mentions a seed mix in the narrative – it has more upland components and wetland indicators that will grow well in wasteland areas like this. DEP Title 5 was used as an evaluation form and the results of three test pits are detailed. One was 9”, one was 10”, and one was 20” deep, though we don’t know where exactly the native material is. Mr. Dick opines that it may have been dredged out as peat but it would have been before his time. National Grid asked them to over-excavate by 6” and then bring it up to pre-work levels. This is B zone with negligible flooding so mitigation is not an issue, but they want to keep it in line with other uplands and have a good layer of vegetation. He estimates that a couple of hundred square feet may not be able to be planted; they may not be able to
remove the concrete or stone underneath so nothing will grow there.
The client has removed all his material from the encroachment and there is a barrier there with some old telephone poles and debris which will be replaced with a continuous row of concrete blocks. Now they need to get the Notice Of Intent filed and proceed with the work as approved by National Grid.
Devine has had contact with National Grid; both he and Mr. Dick were sent their comments, but they have not given them the go-ahead. The first step is to send them an NOI listing them as owner. The first page will go out tomorrow. Devine says they can approve Mr. Dick’s plan and do the NOI later. Mr. Dick verified that materials were removed by sending Devine a set of pictures.
Devine would like to have his DEP contact review the vegetative analysis and give them the OK. They also need National Grid’s approval. In general we are digging to the 1997 grade and adding 6” of material, to be seeded. The applicant is not trying to restore bordering vegetative wetlands. Phragmites is the only wetland indicator. If Pam Merrill of the DEP confirms the analysis, Devine feels it is straightforward and Natonal Grid will just need to sign off. They will need to call Dig Safe and use equipment to clear out the material that is there.
Pabich comments that it is logical to defer to the DEP on riverfront vs. upland analysis and Mr. Dick agrees. Devine will issue the Enforcement Order requiring the restoration plan to be implemented within a reasonable period of time. Mr. Dick says it would take a couple of weeks to do the work; Devine suggests 30 days after Pam’s OK at the DEP and National Grid’s approval. That will be early in the growing season too. It must be planted by the end of June. Normal monitoring is to report annually; Mr. Dick thinks the DEP wants every 5 years. Pam from DEP won’t go down to the site unless DEP takes over enforcement.
The Commission would like two years of annual Spring monitoring, in the spring of 2013 and 2014. Devine hopes to move forward in a week. The enforcement order would be in effect once Devine issues it andthen ratified at the next meeting. Restoration would be done under that Order but the Commission wants and after-the-fact NOI, which should be filed within 30 days of National Grid’s approval. The applicant should move forward immediately at that point.
- DEP #64-512: 23 Parlee Street: Request for certificate of compliance
The Commission was satisfied that the house and work was completed and satisfied the Order of Conditions. Ken Steadman certified that the infiltration system was installed as planned via a letter to the Commission.
A motion to issue the Certificate is made by Pabich, seconded by Blier and passes unanimously. This decision is hereby made a part of these minutes.
A motion to adjourn is made by Blier, seconded by Ricciarelli, and passes unanimously.
The meeting ends at 7:00PM.
Respectfully Submitted,
Stacy Kilb
Clerk, Salem Conservation Commission
Approved by the Conservation Commission on May 24, 2012
| 
